On banning things

Alan Cai

June 7, 2024

In the ostensibly free country of the United States of America, we ban many things. Legally, we ban certain drugs; we ban speech that causes imminent lawless actions, and we ban gambling in some states, namely Hawaii and Utah. Culturally, we censor certain books; modify classroom content, and shun awkward social behaviors. Many of these stringent measures are warranted and are well-intentioned. Others are made out of paranoia and or inflexible thinking. This article aims to explore the intricacies of some of these antagonistic behaviors in America and observe possible compromises that could be contrived to rectify this issue.

Illegal drugs have long been a source of tension in many states. As with most other banned items, substances, and practices, the issue of banning drugs is not a matter of whether or not it should be done, but rather what extent to which it should be practiced. For example, it is almost universally agreed upon that alcohol should not be banned for people above an agreed-upon age (with the possible exception of individuals who adhere to religious beliefs which dictate otherwise). While most people do not even consider it as a drug, alcohol does technically fall into the same category as other better-known drugs and could be arguably considered the most widely used and abused drug in the world. Conversely, it is also relatively rare to find individuals who fiercely advocate for the legalization of fentanyl or heroin. The main areas of contention are the drugs that are milder than the most extreme of them but more potent than cigarettes or alcohol: weed or cocaine for example. I am currently of the opinion that when in doubt, it is most prudent to keep the substances banned until further research and analysis can be done to evaluate the holistic effect of said drugs on the human body long-term. This step is crucial because without extensive research validating the safety of recreationally used drugs, the substances are susceptible to being abused by significant portions of the population without restraint, causing not only a tragic rise in suffering and death, but also a drain on the societal productivity as a whole through not only the rising medical cost incurred through the hospitalizations but also indirectly through a loss in valuable human ingenuity and resourcefulness. In other words, drugs take otherwise able-bodied individuals out of the workforce prematurely.

Banning books is also a key and often partisan sticking point. In this case, the spectrum classification could be less clear than that for drugs because most proponents or opponents advocate for or against banning some or no books. I am of the opinion that while it is necessary to protect society against some of the more vulgar aspects of human nature, we should still exercise extreme caution when choosing which books to ban because of the valuable insight and warning many controversial books provide. Nevertheless, many banned books see an increase in readership anyway, which may counteract the negative image they inherit while being banned.

Despite being a “free country,” America, like any civilization before it, must have certain guidelines to protect its civilian population from its own dangers. However, these activities must stop when it becomes even remotely clear that they are curtailing the fundamental civil liberties of being a citizen. In other words, the approach to imposing restrictions should be taken from a moral standpoint, not a utilitarian one.